Maybe this is abit far fetched. I get the impression that we are (need to
be) moving from a "per artifact" towards a "deployment" paradigm.
Approaches pioneered by crankstart and the provisioning model may become
desirable (as an option) for the installer.
By specifying the desired deployment
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Julian Sedding wrote:
> ...By specifying the desired deployment state in a provisioning model file,
> the installer could make sure it has all required artifacts available (e.g.
> local folder, maven repository, etc). Once that is the case it
Am 22.09.15 um 08:36 schrieb Julian Sedding:
> Maybe this is abit far fetched. I get the impression that we are (need to
> be) moving from a "per artifact" towards a "deployment" paradigm.
I don't think this is far fetched.
>
> Approaches pioneered by crankstart and the provisioning model may
Hi Carsten
I like your idea to use subsystems for provisioning model driven
deployments. From a provisioning model point of view, I suspect this
would provide a namespace/scope for a partial deployment (i.e. the
subsystem).
> There are tons of things we could do and I think we have pretty good
>
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Steven Walters
wrote:
>
> upload guava-17.0.jar to /apps/a/install/guava-17.0.jar
> This creates a new bundle registered within Felix.
>
> upload guava-18.0.jar to /apps/b/install/guava-18.0.jar
> This updates the 17.0 bundle in
Hi Bertrand
I think a partial descriptor approach is a requirement. Firstly,
because it would be hard to transition to an "all or nothing" model in
a single step. Secondly, partial deployments may work well in a
customizable system: one descriptor is the vendor's deployment, the
other contains